News and views from the award-winning author of the novels The Skinny Years, America Libre, House Divided and Pancho Land

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Step aside, Tiger. Step aside, Oprah.

For as long as I can remember, athletes and entertainers have been the prime role models for most young African-Americans. Leading the list of luminaries, of course, are Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey.

Woods is a consummate professional athlete; poised, confident and relentlessly dedicated. Winfrey is one of the most powerful entertainers on the planet, her charm and sincerity winning influence with people from every walk of life. Yet neither of them has really broken any new ground. Both Woods and Winfrey are inheritors of a legacy that has seen black success limited to sports and entertainment.

The election of Barack Obama is about something altogether different. The people of the United States have placed their collective destiny in the hands of a man who two generations ago would have been forced to ride in the back of the bus in some U.S. cities. This turn-around of public attitudes bodes well for the nation.

The next generation of young African-Americans will be fully vested in this republic—sadly for the first time. The example of Barack Obama will open the eyes of young African-Americans. They will see themselves fulfilling destinies their parents would have thought impossible. Their visions of success will no longer be limited to being selected as an All-American or as a headliner in Las Vegas.  From its inception, the presidency of Barack Obama will inspire a generation of young people of every color. And for that, we are all the winners.

Many of the ills and injustices that have plagued this nation are still with us. But there is a new current moving in. And that tide of hope and reason will carry away the ignorance that has long stagnated in some corners of the country.  

As Andrew Young so aptly said, Barack Obama’s election is “a triumph of faith over fear.” 

Raul Ramos y Sanchez


Anonymous said...

Sure, a great day in the history of American politics. It will also be another memorable day when Obama begins to assemble his civilian national security force with military training and military fire power. No one seems to be able to grasp the full magnitude of such a blatant attempt by Obama to create his own personal army. I thought we already had the National Guard to watch over domestic situations. Who will be recruited into this army? What will be their primary objective? Will Obama use them to suppress the population as he impliments his leftist (socialist) agenda? So many unanswered questions and so little time to reverse the error that has been hoodwinked on the citizens of America.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez said...


Please increase the dosage on your medication. Delusional accusations like yours did not keep the American people from electing Barack Obama. Try being a real American and supporting your president-elect instead of a bitter loser.

Anonymous said...

These are statements made by Obama himself. I don't conjure up such crap, only present what is true.

Do you think a Republican who said this could be elected president?

By Vincent Gioia

In his speech July 2 in Colorado Springs, Denver, media darling Barack Obama said:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

What Obama meant:

“…we need a ‘civilian national security force’ that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force …”

But as reported by Joseph Farah of WorldNet Daily Obama’s comments concerning a national police force are not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks. Moreover, transcripts posted at both the Wall Street Journal and Denver Post do not have the critical passage and none of the major news media even mentioned Obama’s call for a national police force.

The transcripts have all had the above paragraph censored. But on the YouTube video you can hear the above comment.

The budget of the Defense Department is about $585 billion, over $200,000 per employee. The Heritage Foundation reports that spending on military personnel averages $70,000 per member, though it is not clear what that entails. If Obama is talking about funding his civilian national security corps at the same level as the military, he would need at least an additional $500 billion. That can buy a lot of clicking boots and Lugers and other wafen for his national Gestapo.

Joseph Farah on WorldNet Daily wrote:

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal. I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?”

I think Obama said exactly what he meant although as a slip of the tongue because this part of his agenda is not something to be expressed prior to the election. Obama has a socialist, near communist agenda, of government control and redistribution of wealth. A national police force would be important in achieving Obama’s goals and could be used to stifle opposition. If you think this is just conspiratorial thinking, reflect back on the days before Hitler’s rise to power in Germany.

I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATF, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, to already handle domestic law enforcement; why do we need an additional national police force? The only reason would be to exercise authority the existing agencies do not have.

In all his life Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he’s never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one. Yet now too many Americans seem willing to entrust him with management of the largest business in the world; and with a national police force as well.

All Obama’s experience prior to his 123 days in the U.S. Senate has been in community organizing. Among other things he worked with ACORN, the extremist community organization whose rap sheet include perpetration of numerous acts of violence, such as the destructive actions in Philadelphia where numerous buildings were burned to the ground. His other experience includes assisting in the Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, training programs for Vietnamese Refugees, assembling congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, and being an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state’s Commission on Human Rights was being drafted. Although some of these community action deeds may be commendable, on one level, they hardly constitute any sort of experience to justify his election to the country’s highest office, and any comparison to Senator John McCain’s experience and background is laughable.

Putting Obama in charge of a national police force is akin to giving a paper hanger (Hitler’s previous profession) an armed force funded with billions of dollars (to be commensurate with the existing military) and the power to enforce an agenda that will change every fabric of American freedom.

I do not trust Barack Obama in the least and this only adds to my mistrust. If it had been John McCain who had made this proposal, the press would have been all over it. Why does Obama get a pass from the media; because they want Obama elected president!

Do you Obama supporters still want him to be president after knowing about this part of his agenda? If you buy into Obama’s call for “change”, is this the kind of change you want?

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at and he may be contacted at

So, what about it? A military branch of the government at Obamas beck and call is not a good thing.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez said...

There's a word for someone who takes a sentence out of context and fabricates an elaborate scenario that presumes evil intent for someone with whom they do not agree: crackpot.

Your post contains one sentence by Barack Obama. All the other material that follows is pure partisan delusion.

Please. Consider some thorazine.

Anonymous said...

Here is his statement and it seems very much to the point as to what he means. Can you put your spin on this statement?

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Raul Ramos y Sanchez said...

No, I cannot put a “spin” on this statement. I can only state what a reasonable person without a partisan agenda would conclude:

President-elect Obama feels our current, non-military national security infrastructure (FBI, NSA, CIA, et al) should play a greater role in protecting the nation from terrorists and other external threats. The 9-11 terrorists were not a military force. They operated like criminals. Therefore, a non-military civilian security force is a more effective method of protecting our national security from these threats. The so-called “war on terror” created by the Bush administration with its over-reliance on military power has only led us into an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq.

These accusations of a national Gestapo with jackboots and Lugers is pure partisan fantasy.

Anonymous said...

Very well, only time will tell. A very large portion of this nation does not trust Obama because of his shady backgroud and very vague explainations on which direction he will lead this country. With statements like the one we are discussing, he leaves what he means up to individual interpretation since he fails to ever give any details. Let's wait and see.
BTW, Are you a medical doctor? Since you seem to know a lot about meds, you are either a doctor or a very heavy user.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez said...

For the record... I an neither an MD nor a drug user. But I suppose knowing that Thorazine is used to treat patients with schizophrenic delusions might seem like impressive medical knowledge for folks who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.